Pod Standing
This Week’s Matchups
This Week’s Standings
Season Standings
| Player | Match Pts | Total Pts | PVP Record |
|---|
Player Detail
No lineups submitted yet this week.
Intro
Week 1 is in the books and it was a shootout. We had two players break the previous record for points in a week and everyone was very high. Between the 6 of us, we only had technically 5 losses (4 unique games) and 5 passes, meaning an average of +36.2 points per game including the losses. It was a bad week for college football but a good week for this.
Choke Job of the Week
I had planned to do a choke job of the week but it’s hard picking between the finalists this week. The obvious choices are Michigan needing and getting the refs to bail them out against Western Michigan, and Rutgers getting embarrassed by UMass. I think I’m going to have to go with Rutgers simply because of the massive point spread differential (30 point favorites to lose 16, and it wasn’t nearly as close as the final score indicated). UMass has been the worst program in FBS by nearly every objective measure and hadn’t won a game against an FBS opponent since October 12, 2023. And it’s strange, Rutgers has such a good coach that Tennessee fans should have accepted that they can’t do better.
At the same time, it’s hard to understate how awful it was for Michigan to need the refs to bail them out against Western Michigan. Given the spread (-26.5), the right and truthful score should have had them missing the spread by 32.5. Not nearly as bad as Rutgers, obviously, but any time you’re losing by 5 touchdowns to the spread, you know it’s a major disaster. And them getting an extra play on the end was criminal. But it’s the school who in the 2013 Outback Bowl had the refs signal a first down when there was a clear gap before the marker, so we’re used to seeing baffling calls for them.
Honorable mentions go to Clemson, who got dogwalked by LSU, and Western Kentucky, who got blown out by Nevada. Even as 10 point underdogs Clemson found a away to embarrass themselves further by losing by 41 and that’s even without the NFL players that Kiffin brought back. Clemson’s time really has passed them by. And yes, I see you Western Kentucky. With all the shenanigans going on at the top among the power programs, it’s easy to miss a 4 point favorite going and getting blown out by 35. They were one of the few C-USA teams with a chance to win an FBS game and as such were played in both pods, giving -35 to Bob and Dylan and setting an already high bar for biggest loss played of the season.
CFB Game Summary
In our game, we ended up with pretty close matchups. The pod-vs-pod match was 122 points (8% of the winning pod’s score) but the player-vs-player matchup didn’t pit 1v1 and 2v2, so the per-matchup differential was nearly as great (106.7 per game). In a very close finish, Bob finished a single point ahead of Dylan for 4th, getting an extra match point, while Bruce and Jacob spent the whole weekend behind but had backloaded schedules and stormed to #2 and #3 overall.
It’s hard to make heads or tails of anything in week 1, especially this week 1, since it largely came down to schedule arrangement. As we move deeper into the season we’ll get a better sense of how good each player’s roster is.
Changes this week
There were no major changes to how things work this week, but I did make a couple small quality of life improvements. There was a small bug where the live status scorecards didn’t correctly tell you the number of remaining games and marked completed games as still pending; this is now fixed and you should see a count of how many live games you have when games are going, and a correct count of how many pending games you have when they aren’t. I’ve also added a feature to hyperlink each live game to the ESPN Gamecast page for it, so if you see a score on your scorecard and want to check in on it, that score is a hyperlink to see more.
Drop/Adds
We had the following roster changes this week:
White Pod: Bob drop Arkansas State, pick up UConn
Orange Pod: Zach drop Arkansas State, pick up Louisiana Tech.
Recap Explanation
Since this is the first week of the season, I want to lay out what the information is that I’ll be providing in these recaps if any of it is unclear.
1. Pod vs pod table and overall results – here I’ll list the high-level summary of players and pods; who scored the most, who got the match play points, etc. You’ll see two “synthetic” players in the table. These are the best theoretical lineups with the leftover free agents in each pod (the scraps, hence player name “Scrappy”). These have no significance to the game and are only there as an amusement. It’s very rare to see Scrappy beat anybody, much less finish 2nd overall, which really highlights just how awful this week was – there were blowouts in the overwhelming majority of games this week.
2. Week’s matchups – just shows who was matched up in the PVP format. This is on a double round robin so this week’s matchups will be repeated in week 6. For the upcoming week 2, our matchups are Bob v Jacob, Dylan v Zach, and Bruce v Dan.
3. Season leaderboard – this will be the running tally of all three methods (match play, total points, and PVP) but of course on week 1, it’s the same as the weekly.
4. Player detail – this box lists your final scorecard, the scores for teams you didn’t play, and an optimal lineup showing what arrangement of all your teams would have given you the highest score, marked red where there were misplays. As you can see from the collapsed details, my actual score was higher than 4 players’ optimal and only 5 points lower than Bruce’s optimal, so don’t feel bad about losing to me.
5. Max Lineup – this is the best possible lineup among all CFB teams, which again shows how terrible this week was. You could fill out a lineup, including multiple G6 conferences that are on the receiving end of buy games, with teams that averaged winning by 58 ppg.
6. Unplayed Games
6A. Redundant games – this section is the highest scoring games that it wouldn’t make sense to play them; putting any of these teams in play would have meant removing a team that scored more points. Only 3 games here (Memphis, Washington, and Houston) seemed very helpful, so we didn’t have a lot of points “stuck” behind better games.
6B. Wasted games – this section is the more informative because it shows where the biggest misplays (which are only that retroactively, of course) can be found. The fact that I put 5-point loser/1-point “winner” Michigan in my wild card makes this look absurd for me – I had 3 30+ point favorites that sat on my bench. Hopefully, that doesn’t come back to bite me later in the season. These games are ranked by net points gained, so the ranking isn’t their raw margin of victory but the most points a player could get by swapping them in.
7. Top unowned scores – this lists the top performers for the week that weren’t owned in one or both pods. These would have been ideal drop/add candidates, but for this week I don’t think any of them were big enough favorites to win to justify the risk.
8. Games by pod and ownership – in this section, I wanted to break down all the games that were played by looking at games played in both pods, games owned in both pods but only played in one, and games only played in one where the team was a free agent in the other. At the end of this section I put a spot for head-to-head games – often there’s a game where it’s a very close spread and one person just wants to take a chance on it. In this case, Jacob was thin in the MWC and took Nevada, a slight underdog, whereas Bob and Dylan both went with the favorite Western Kentucky, thus giving Jacob a net 70 point gain on both of them, which turned out to be huge when his final margin over them was +15 and +16.
9. Pod similarity – here I did two measures of similarity between players. First, a flat matchup of everyone in white pod vs everyone in orange pod, to see which players had the most mutual picks. For this, Bruce and I matched on nearly half our picks, and those picks contributed a combined 338 points, so that was a pretty healthy core of obvious picks for both of us. There is another presentation of this similarity ordered by points rather than number of picks. I have the top two in this measure, representing 11/16 picks and 532/676 (78.7%) points, so my success clearly wasn’t any super genius insight but rather having the best week 1 alignment. The second measure of alignment is taking all 6 players and measuring pairwise how alike their scorecards were at every slot – basically the absolute value of the difference between their points at every conference slot and flex spot. This shows players whose team skeletons are similar, even if they’re not the same teams.
Pod vs. Pod —
Overall Results
This Week’s Matchups
| Player | Pts | Pts | Player |
|---|
Season Leaderboard
| Rk | Player | Match Pts | Total Pts | PVP Record |
|---|
Player Detail
Max — Best Possible Lineup, Any FBS Team
Unplayed Games
Redundant — scored on the bench, but no slot could use them
| Team | Conf | Net | Owner | Pod |
|---|
Wasted — a bench team that could have been swapped in
| Team | Conf | Pts Gained | Instead Of | Owner | Pod |
|---|
Top Unowned Scores (League-Wide)
| Team | Conf | Net | Free Agent In |
|---|
Games by Pod & Ownership
Pick Similarity
Cross-Pod — Same Teams Picked
Which teams two players both picked this week, regardless of the slot each used. Same-pod players can’t share a team.
Ranked by matching teams
| Pair | Matching | Shared Impact | Shared Teams |
|---|
Ranked by shared impact (Σ |margin|)
| Pair | Shared Impact | Matching | Shared Teams |
|---|
Every Pair — Points Per Slot
Slot for slot, how close were the points? Conference slots pair by conference; the flex slots pair best-to-best by margin. Lower distance = more alike. Same-direction slots are where both picks won, both lost, or both hit zero.
| Pair | Slot Pt Distance | Same-Direction Slots |
|---|
Pod Standing
This Week’s Matchups
This Week’s Standings
Season Standings
| Player | Match Pts | Total Pts | PVP Record |
|---|
Player Detail
No lineups submitted yet this week.
Welcome to the official start of the 2026 season! This is the first year with 6 players across two pods, but drafting seems to have gone off without a hitch. Today is the “week 0” games and the first week of our game starts on Thursday.
Before the start I thought I’d like to recap where we stand and summarize the draft.
To set the stage, lets look at who all players drafted:
| Pick number | Bruce | Bob | Dan | Dylan | Jacob | Zach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio State | Georgia | Notre Dame | Ohio State | Notre Dame | Oregon |
| 2 | Texas Tech | Miami | Oregon | Georgia | SMU | Miami |
| 3 | BYU | Indiana | Western Michigan | Houston | Texas Tech | Indiana |
| 4 | LSU | Boise State | Clemson | Penn State | Toledo | Boise State |
| 5 | SMU | Utah | Texas A&M | Clemson | Texas A&M | LSU |
| 6 | UNLV | James Madison | Ole Miss | Navy | Delaware | BYU |
| 7 | Penn State | Texas | Navy | James Madison | Tennessee | Jacksonville State |
| 8 | San Diego State | Liberty | Louisiana | Liberty | South Florida | UConn |
| 9 | UTSA | Toledo | New Mexico | San Diego State | UNLV | UTSA |
| 10 | Old Dominion | North Dakota State | Alabama | North Dakota State | Virginia | Texas |
| 11 | Jacksonville State | Houston | Iowa State | Alabama | Miami (OH) | Western Michigan |
| 12 | Miami (OH) | Louisville | Oklahoma | Arizona | Iowa | New Mexico |
| 13 | Fresno State | Michigan | Cincinnati | Texas State | Old Dominion | Marshall |
| 14 | Memphis | South Florida | Kennesaw State | California | Kansas State | Michigan |
| 15 | USC | East Carolina | Ohio | Ole Miss | Fresno State | South Carolina |
| 16 | Tennessee | Hawai’i | TCU | Memphis | Washington | Utah |
| 17 | Missouri | Kansas State | Florida State | USC | Tulane | Arkansas State |
| 18 | Virginia | Western Kentucky | Air Force | Western Kentucky | Ohio | Louisville |
| 19 | Middle Tennessee | Marshall | App State | UCF | Nebraska | Army |
| 20 | Arizona State | Tulane | Oregon State | South Alabama | Nevada | Kennesaw State |
| 21 | NC State | Central Michigan | Army | Oklahoma | Vanderbilt | Troy |
| 22 | Nevada | Pittsburgh | Sam Houston | North Texas | Missouri State | Utah State |
| 23 | Troy | Iowa | Colorado | Air Force | TCU | Buffalo |
| 24 | Washington State | Texas State | Northern Illinois | Louisiana | Oregon State | Virginia Tech |
| 25 | Buffalo | Florida | Georgia Tech | Washington State | Pittsburgh | Arizona State |
| 26 | Virginia Tech | Washington | Florida Atlantic | NC State | East Carolina | Florida Atlantic |
| 27 | Louisiana Tech | Arizona | UTEP | Kansas | Illinois | Hawai’i |
| 28 | North Texas | Delaware | Utah State | Duke | Southern Miss | Florida |
| 29 | West Virginia | South Carolina | Illinois | Central Michigan | Sacramento State | Eastern Michigan |
| 30 | South Alabama | Arkansas State | Colorado State | Wisconsin | Baylor | Wake Forest |
For a 1-90 draft order by pod, see the supplementary tables below.
Using these draft numbers, we’ll look at some trends about team strengths and how we collectively viewed these teams and conferences.
To get a first glance at how each roster stacks up superficially, we can
take all teams’ FPIs and add them up. The table below shows the total and average FPI of every player’s total roster:
| Player | Pod | Total roster FPI | Average FPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bob | White Pod | 137.1 | 4.57 |
| Dylan | Orange Pod | 106.4 | 3.55 |
| Jacob | Orange Pod | 94.5 | 3.15 |
| Zach | Orange Pod | 89.1 | 2.97 |
| Bruce | White Pod | 71.8 | 2.39 |
| Dan | White Pod | 29.0 | 0.97 |
But average doesn’t mean much when you’re barely playing about half the teams each week. We can also create a “starting lineup” for each player based on those FPI measures. For each player, I’ve slotted in a theoretical lineup based on our scoring format (top from each conference, then next 3 best P4 and 2 best G6 teams, then best remaining). Based on the sums of FPIs, the best projected average lineup is Bob with an FPI of 138.9. You can see the full results in the table below:
| Player | Pod | Starting-lineup FPI (16 slots) |
|---|---|---|
| Bob | White Pod | 138.9 |
| Zach | Orange Pod | 127.1 |
| Bruce | White Pod | 113.6 |
| Dylan | Orange Pod | 113.2 |
| Jacob | Orange Pod | 107.6 |
| Dan | White Pod | 103.1 |
Next, we can look at the “bench” for each player, or the FPI of their remaining 14 teams. Bob again has the highest:
| Player | Pod | Bench FPI (remaining 14 teams) |
|---|---|---|
| Bob | White Pod | -1.8 |
| Dylan | Orange Pod | -6.9 |
| Jacob | Orange Pod | -13.1 |
| Zach | Orange Pod | -38.1 |
| Bruce | White Pod | -41.8 |
| Dan | White Pod | -74.1 |
Of course, this is a very shallow prediction – FPI in the early season isn’t very valuable with no data to base it on, and it doesn’t account for the game, and even when it’s got data it’ll be of limited value because of the huge variance in game-to-game results.
As I said, FPI isn’t a super great metric to base predictions on at this stage. But let’s just go for it. In this section, I’ve made a really rough roster-strength screener. I got the FPI measure for both teams in every FBS game this season (and put in a flat -30 for FCS opponents). For each game, I added +1.5 FPI to the home team and -1.5 to the away team to account for home-field advantage. Then, for every game where the favorite had at least a +1.0 adjFPI advantage, I added that advantage to the player total who owned them. The table below shows the total favorable FPI of all teams for each player for all games where they have an FPI advantage.
| Player | Pod | Favorable adj-FPI edge | Favorable games | Edge excl. FCS | Games excl. FCS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bob | White Pod | 3310.4 | 254 | 2358.0 | 228 |
| Jacob | Orange Pod | 3057.0 | 234 | 2131.9 | 208 |
| Zach | Orange Pod | 3025.3 | 225 | 2063.4 | 197 |
| Dylan | Orange Pod | 2890.6 | 221 | 2003.4 | 195 |
| Bruce | White Pod | 2867.8 | 220 | 2007.4 | 194 |
| Dan | White Pod | 2563.0 | 191 | 1653.6 | 163 |
By that metric, the top team this year is Notre Dame with a +282 (owned by Jacob and Dan), followed by Texas Tech at +258 (Jacob and Bruce), Indiana at +252 (Bob and Zach), and Ohio State at +250 (Bruce and Dylan).
One thing to look out for as the season progresses is how schedules line up. It’s possible that some of us may have a lot of really favorable games but they fall on weeks where they can’t all be played, leaving a lot of points orphaned.
The more interesting details, in my mind, are looking at the draft and seeing how the six of us collectively ranked and prioritized these teams.
There was very strong consensus across the top of the board: the top 5 teams were the same, just shuffled, and of the next 5 there were 3 that were only 1 pick different between pods. Below are the top 10 (in this section, teams were score 90-0 where first pick got 90, last pick got 1, and undrafted teams got 0).
| Rank | Team | Conf | Orange pts | White pts | Total pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Notre Dame | P4_IND | 90 | 89 | 179 |
| 2 | Ohio State | B1G | 88 | 90 | 178 |
| 3 | Oregon | B1G | 89 | 86 | 175 |
| 4 | Georgia | SEC | 87 | 88 | 175 |
| 5 | Miami | ACC | 86 | 87 | 173 |
| 6 | Texas Tech | B12 | 84 | 85 | 169 |
| 7 | Indiana | B1G | 83 | 82 | 165 |
| 8 | SMU | ACC | 85 | 78 | 163 |
| 9 | Boise State | PAC | 80 | 81 | 161 |
| 10 | BYU | B12 | 74 | 84 | 158 |
There were 34 teams that went undrafted in both pods, and 28 teams that went undrafted in one pod. Of that 28, these are the top 10 teams that were picked in one pod but not the other:
| Team | Pick | Drafted by |
|---|---|---|
| UConn | 23 | Zach (Orange Pod) |
| Iowa State | 32 | Dan (White Pod) |
| Cincinnati | 38 | Dan (White Pod) |
| California | 40 | Dylan (Orange Pod) |
| Missouri | 49 | Bruce (White Pod) |
| Florida State | 50 | Dan (White Pod) |
| Nebraska | 55 | Jacob (Orange Pod) |
| Middle Tennessee | 55 | Bruce (White Pod) |
| App State | 56 | Dan (White Pod) |
| UCF | 57 | Dylan (Orange Pod) |
The clear outlier here is UConn, picked a full 9 spots higher than the next highest singleton and solidly in the top 1/3 of the draft. Overall, it seems like the White Pod was more likely to reach on some of these teams that we were less in agreement about, with 4 of the next 5.
There are also some notable disagreements among teams that both pods drafted. The clear winner in this regard is Delaware, who was drafted 64 spots higher in Orange Pod than White Pod. The biggest disagreements are shown in this table:
| Team | Conf | Orange pick | White pick | Gap (spots) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delaware | CUSA | 18 | 82 | 64 |
| Louisiana | SBC | 70 | 23 | 47 |
| Arizona | B12 | 34 | 81 | 47 |
| South Carolina | SEC | 44 | 87 | 43 |
| Arkansas State | SBC | 50 | 88 | 38 |
| Hawai’i | MWC | 80 | 46 | 34 |
| East Carolina | AAC | 78 | 45 | 33 |
| Iowa | B1G | 36 | 69 | 33 |
| South Alabama | SBC | 58 | 90 | 32 |
| Utah | B12 | 47 | 15 | 32 |
All of these teams are probably going to be pretty bad, so there’s not a lot of damage done here. But this may be an example of the opportunity cost of these picks; the player that picked them might have been able to get a better team elsewhere and still picked up this one later in the draft.
Here you can see all the picks vs FPI which represents the trend nicely. In the early picks, not only is there a higher percentage of high FPI picks early, but the correlation is much stronger. As we get to the later rounds, there’s still an obviously downward trend, but the correlation is so loose it’s probably statistically insignicant (I didn’t do the math, just eyeballed it).
There’s a noticeable cluster of highly picked but not super high FPI teams, highlighed in the red ellipse. These could be teams to look out for; they probably had a lot of talent but a lot of question marks, so if things come together they could be good for a ton of points, or they could be this year’s version of 2025 Penn State. There are 5 of these teams that are picked in both pods, and 4 in one pod but not the other. These teams by player selected:
| Player | Team | Pick num (overall) | FPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bruce | BYU | 7 | 13.125 |
| Bruce | SMU | 13 | 11.117 |
| Bruce | Penn State | 19 | 13.716 |
| Bob | Boise State | 10 | 4.045 |
| Bob | Utah | 15 | 8.451 |
| Dan | Clemson | 11 | 13.421 |
| Dan | Ole Miss | 17 | 16.029 |
| Dylan | Houston | 9 | 7.120 |
| Dylan | Penn State | 10 | 13.716 |
| Dylan | Clemson | 15 | 13.421 |
| Jacob | SMU | 6 | 11.117 |
| Jacob | Tennessee | 19 | 15.058 |
| Zach | Boise State | 11 | 4.045 |
| Zach | BYU | 17 | 13.125 |
Next, we can look at how we all drafted the conferences. It should surprise no one that the SEC and the Big Ten are head-and-shoulders ahead of the pack, reflecting that the “P4” is more like “P2, and also 2 pretty good conferences.” But because both are so big and so good at the top, they actually had a lower pick rate – between the 6 of us, we only picked 12 SEC and 11 Big Ten teams (out of 16 and 18, respectively) but we picked 8/10 C-USA and Mountain West, all but one Big 12 team, and every Pac “12” team (8/8, obviously). The table below lists the conferences by total pick points:
| Conference | Tier | Teams picked | In conference | Total pick points | Avg pts / picked team | Avg pick # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC | P4 | 12 | 16 | 1204 | 100.3 | 36.3 |
| B1G | P4 | 11 | 18 | 1052 | 95.6 | 38.4 |
| B12 | P4 | 15 | 16 | 1045 | 69.7 | 45.6 |
| ACC | P4 | 13 | 17 | 928 | 71.4 | 46.8 |
| AAC | G6 | 9 | 14 | 749 | 83.2 | 49.4 |
| SBC | G6 | 10 | 14 | 621 | 62.1 | 54.5 |
| CUSA | G6 | 8 | 10 | 598 | 74.8 | 45.0 |
| MWC | G6 | 8 | 10 | 589 | 73.6 | 48.9 |
| PAC | G6 | 8 | 8 | 589 | 73.6 | 51.7 |
| MAC | G6 | 8 | 13 | 568 | 71.0 | 50.4 |
We picked the ACC and Big 12 surprisingly low, which reflects (and possibly validates) my belief that those conferences are really a crapshoot beyond Miami and Texas Tech. There are so many teams in each that are nearly interchangeable that it’s better for the mechanics of this game to pick the G6 teams with the higher marginal value of getting the decent G6 teams before they’re gone and you’re stuck with something abysmal.
That is more apparent in this next table. In this table, I’ve switched from the average to the top n teams in each conference (top single team, top 2 teams, top 4 teams, and top 8 teams):
| Conference | Tier | Top 1 | Top 2 | Top 4 | Top 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1G | P4 | 178 | 353 | 671 | 996 |
| SEC | P4 | 175 | 331 | 618 | 1057 |
| ACC | P4 | 173 | 336 | 590 | 826 |
| B12 | P4 | 169 | 327 | 587 | 870 |
| AAC | G6 | 146 | 277 | 489 | 721 |
| MAC | G6 | 143 | 285 | 484 | 568 |
| PAC | G6 | 161 | 292 | 467 | 589 |
| MWC | G6 | 139 | 265 | 446 | 589 |
| SBC | G6 | 145 | 260 | 436 | 602 |
| CUSA | G6 | 138 | 269 | 433 | 598 |
This, again, at least confirms that I’m not alone but also possibly validates my opinion that the Big Ten has overtaken the SEC in the elite, top of conference teams, but the SEC is deeper and has the best middle group of teams of any conference. And it also puts the conferences in roughly an order that would be hard to debate (SEC and Big Ten above all, ACC and Big 12 below them but well above the G6, and American well above the rest of the G6).
Here is a graphic representation of how the conferences stacked up. The G6 FPIs show why raw FPI totals aren’t necessarily a perfect metric. If you overdraft P4 teams, you could have a lot of relatively higher FPI teams sitting on the bench every week and open spots in the G6.
With all that said, the season is about as predictable as the weather so it may very well turn out that none of us know what we’re talking about and these picks were all terrible. But that’s the fun of sports and this game.
As previously stated, week 0 starts today. Between us, every game has at least one team owned by one player, and in 3/8 games both teams are owned in both pods. Several of us will be banking points and all of us will be getting some data on at least a few of our teams. These games (and their teams’ respective owners) are:
Week 1 starts Thursday, September 3, with 11 Thursday night games and goes through the Labor Day game on Monday, September 7.
No conclusions, just wanted to get your attention to say good luck and have fun! Looking forward to a great season.
The full 1–90 pick order for each pod, referenced above.
| Pick | Player | Team |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jacob | Notre Dame |
| 2 | Zach | Oregon |
| 3 | Dylan | Ohio State |
| 4 | Dylan | Georgia |
| 5 | Zach | Miami |
| 6 | Jacob | SMU |
| 7 | Jacob | Texas Tech |
| 8 | Zach | Indiana |
| 9 | Dylan | Houston |
| 10 | Dylan | Penn State |
| 11 | Zach | Boise State |
| 12 | Jacob | Toledo |
| 13 | Jacob | Texas A&M |
| 14 | Zach | LSU |
| 15 | Dylan | Clemson |
| 16 | Dylan | Navy |
| 17 | Zach | BYU |
| 18 | Jacob | Delaware |
| 19 | Jacob | Tennessee |
| 20 | Zach | Jacksonville State |
| 21 | Dylan | James Madison |
| 22 | Dylan | Liberty |
| 23 | Zach | UConn |
| 24 | Jacob | South Florida |
| 25 | Jacob | UNLV |
| 26 | Zach | UTSA |
| 27 | Dylan | San Diego State |
| 28 | Dylan | North Dakota State |
| 29 | Zach | Texas |
| 30 | Jacob | Virginia |
| 31 | Jacob | Miami (OH) |
| 32 | Zach | Western Michigan |
| 33 | Dylan | Alabama |
| 34 | Dylan | Arizona |
| 35 | Zach | New Mexico |
| 36 | Jacob | Iowa |
| 37 | Jacob | Old Dominion |
| 38 | Zach | Marshall |
| 39 | Dylan | Texas State |
| 40 | Dylan | California |
| 41 | Zach | Michigan |
| 42 | Jacob | Kansas State |
| 43 | Jacob | Fresno State |
| 44 | Zach | South Carolina |
| 45 | Dylan | Ole Miss |
| 46 | Dylan | Memphis |
| 47 | Zach | Utah |
| 48 | Jacob | Washington |
| 49 | Jacob | Tulane |
| 50 | Zach | Arkansas State |
| 51 | Dylan | USC |
| 52 | Dylan | Western Kentucky |
| 53 | Zach | Louisville |
| 54 | Jacob | Ohio |
| 55 | Jacob | Nebraska |
| 56 | Zach | Army |
| 57 | Dylan | UCF |
| 58 | Dylan | South Alabama |
| 59 | Zach | Kennesaw State |
| 60 | Jacob | Nevada |
| 61 | Jacob | Vanderbilt |
| 62 | Zach | Troy |
| 63 | Dylan | Oklahoma |
| 64 | Dylan | North Texas |
| 65 | Zach | Utah State |
| 66 | Jacob | Missouri State |
| 67 | Jacob | TCU |
| 68 | Zach | Buffalo |
| 69 | Dylan | Air Force |
| 70 | Dylan | Louisiana |
| 71 | Zach | Virginia Tech |
| 72 | Jacob | Oregon State |
| 73 | Jacob | Pittsburgh |
| 74 | Zach | Arizona State |
| 75 | Dylan | Washington State |
| 76 | Dylan | NC State |
| 77 | Zach | Florida Atlantic |
| 78 | Jacob | East Carolina |
| 79 | Jacob | Illinois |
| 80 | Zach | Hawai’i |
| 81 | Dylan | Kansas |
| 82 | Dylan | Duke |
| 83 | Zach | Florida |
| 84 | Jacob | Southern Miss |
| 85 | Jacob | Sacramento State |
| 86 | Zach | Eastern Michigan |
| 87 | Dylan | Central Michigan |
| 88 | Dylan | Wisconsin |
| 89 | Zach | Wake Forest |
| 90 | Jacob | Baylor |
| Pick | Player | Team |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bruce | Ohio State |
| 2 | Dan | Notre Dame |
| 3 | Bob | Georgia |
| 4 | Bob | Miami |
| 5 | Dan | Oregon |
| 6 | Bruce | Texas Tech |
| 7 | Bruce | BYU |
| 8 | Dan | Western Michigan |
| 9 | Bob | Indiana |
| 10 | Bob | Boise State |
| 11 | Dan | Clemson |
| 12 | Bruce | LSU |
| 13 | Bruce | SMU |
| 14 | Dan | Texas A&M |
| 15 | Bob | Utah |
| 16 | Bob | James Madison |
| 17 | Dan | Ole Miss |
| 18 | Bruce | UNLV |
| 19 | Bruce | Penn State |
| 20 | Dan | Navy |
| 21 | Bob | Texas |
| 22 | Bob | Liberty |
| 23 | Dan | Louisiana |
| 24 | Bruce | San Diego State |
| 25 | Bruce | UTSA |
| 26 | Dan | New Mexico |
| 27 | Bob | Toledo |
| 28 | Bob | North Dakota State |
| 29 | Dan | Alabama |
| 30 | Bruce | Old Dominion |
| 31 | Bruce | Jacksonville State |
| 32 | Dan | Iowa State |
| 33 | Bob | Houston |
| 34 | Bob | Louisville |
| 35 | Dan | Oklahoma |
| 36 | Bruce | Miami (OH) |
| 37 | Bruce | Fresno State |
| 38 | Dan | Cincinnati |
| 39 | Bob | Michigan |
| 40 | Bob | South Florida |
| 41 | Dan | Kennesaw State |
| 42 | Bruce | Memphis |
| 43 | Bruce | USC |
| 44 | Dan | Ohio |
| 45 | Bob | East Carolina |
| 46 | Bob | Hawai’i |
| 47 | Dan | TCU |
| 48 | Bruce | Tennessee |
| 49 | Bruce | Missouri |
| 50 | Dan | Florida State |
| 51 | Bob | Kansas State |
| 52 | Bob | Western Kentucky |
| 53 | Dan | Air Force |
| 54 | Bruce | Virginia |
| 55 | Bruce | Middle Tennessee |
| 56 | Dan | App State |
| 57 | Bob | Marshall |
| 58 | Bob | Tulane |
| 59 | Dan | Oregon State |
| 60 | Bruce | Arizona State |
| 61 | Bruce | NC State |
| 62 | Dan | Army |
| 63 | Bob | Central Michigan |
| 64 | Bob | Pittsburgh |
| 65 | Dan | Sam Houston |
| 66 | Bruce | Nevada |
| 67 | Bruce | Troy |
| 68 | Dan | Colorado |
| 69 | Bob | Iowa |
| 70 | Bob | Texas State |
| 71 | Dan | Northern Illinois |
| 72 | Bruce | Washington State |
| 73 | Bruce | Buffalo |
| 74 | Dan | Georgia Tech |
| 75 | Bob | Florida |
| 76 | Bob | Washington |
| 77 | Dan | Florida Atlantic |
| 78 | Bruce | Virginia Tech |
| 79 | Bruce | Louisiana Tech |
| 80 | Dan | UTEP |
| 81 | Bob | Arizona |
| 82 | Bob | Delaware |
| 83 | Dan | Utah State |
| 84 | Bruce | North Texas |
| 85 | Bruce | West Virginia |
| 86 | Dan | Illinois |
| 87 | Bob | South Carolina |
| 88 | Bob | Arkansas State |
| 89 | Dan | Colorado State |
| 90 | Bruce | South Alabama |
Weeks 1–10, double round robin; every player faces every other player exactly twice.
| Wk | Matchups | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 / 6 | BobvZachcross | BrucevJacobcross | DanvDylancross |
| 2 / 7 | BobvJacobcross | ZachvDylanin-pod | BrucevDanin-pod |
| 3 / 8 | BobvDylancross | JacobvDancross | ZachvBrucecross |
| 4 / 9 | BobvDanin-pod | DylanvBrucecross | JacobvZachin-pod |
| 5 / 10 | BobvBrucein-pod | DanvZachcross | DylanvJacobin-pod |
This is your head-to-head record from the ladder above. Playoff seeding is determined by this record.
Each week’s matchup goes to whoever scores higher that week. Across all 10 games, you’re ranked by win percentage (a tie counts as half a win).
Each step only re-examines whoever the previous step failed to separate. A group of four splitting into “two clear, two still tied” drops just that pair into the next step. This ranking only runs once the regular season is fully played; mid-season ties just display as ties.
Weeks 11–13, six-team single elimination with consolation games for every remaining spot.
Two more scoring tracks run during the season in addition to the PVP standing above.
Every week, your rank against the other five players that week pays out; margin of win or loss doesn’t matter. Same base points awarded every week:
Plus three stackable +1 bonuses, every week:
Simple total of every week’s raw net point margin, all season long, and rank players by that running total.
Last updated: 06:00 14-May-2026
| index | Correct picks | Parlays (Hit-miss-pending) | Points (max remaining) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jacob | 25/39 | 1-6-0 | 31 (7) |
| Zach Crockett | 20/39 | 1-5-0 | 32 (7) |
| Dylan | 20/39 | 4-2-0 | 26 (6) |
| Dan | 27/39 | 0-0-0 | 27 (7) |
| Brady Valliere | 20/39 | 0-0-0 | 20 (7) |
Totals — Correct: 6, Incorrect: 4
Totals — Correct: 7, Incorrect: 13
Totals — Correct: 10, Incorrect: 16
No parlays.
Totals — Correct: 27, Incorrect: 12
No parlays.
Totals — Correct: 20, Incorrect: 19
Last updated: 2025-12-07 09:47:49
| Points | Wins/Winning | Losses/Losing | To be played | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dylan | 130.1 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| Bob | 81.4 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
| Zach | -6.2 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
| Jacob | 103.8 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| team | multiplier | Modified Points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | Virginia | 1.7 | -11.9 |
| Big 10 | Ohio State | 1.5 | -4.5 |
| Big 12 | Texas Tech | 1.6 | 43.2 |
| SEC | Georgia | 1.6 | 33.6 |
| American | Tulane | 1.0 | 13.0 |
| C-USA | Kennesaw State | 1.8 | 7.2 |
| MAC | Miami (OH) | 1.0 | -10.0 |
| Mountain West | Boise State | 1.5 | 25.5 |
| Sun Belt | James Madison | 2.0 | 34.0 |
| Total | — | — | 130.1 |
| team | multiplier | Modified Points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | Virginia | 1.4 | -9.8 |
| Big 10 | Ohio State | 1.3 | -3.9 |
| Big 12 | Texas Tech | 1.9 | 51.3 |
| SEC | Alabama | 1.0 | -21.0 |
| American | North Texas | 1.3 | -16.9 |
| C-USA | Kennesaw State | 1.2 | 4.8 |
| MAC | Western Michigan | 1.4 | 14.0 |
| Mountain West | Boise State | 1.7 | 28.9 |
| Sun Belt | James Madison | 2.0 | 34.0 |
| Total | — | — | 81.4 |
| team | multiplier | Modified Points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | Virginia | 1.7 | -11.9 |
| Big 10 | Indiana | 1.1 | 3.3 |
| Big 12 | BYU | 1.3 | -35.1 |
| SEC | Georgia | 1.1 | 23.1 |
| American | North Texas | 1.4 | -18.2 |
| C-USA | Kennesaw State | 1.1 | 4.4 |
| MAC | Miami (OH) | 1.6 | -16.0 |
| Mountain West | Boise State | 1.0 | 17.0 |
| Sun Belt | James Madison | 1.6 | 27.2 |
| Total | — | — | -6.2 |
| team | multiplier | Modified Points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | Virginia | 1.6 | -11.2 |
| Big 10 | Ohio State | 1.6 | -4.8 |
| Big 12 | Texas Tech | 1.3 | 35.1 |
| SEC | Georgia | 1.3 | 27.3 |
| American | North Texas | 1.4 | -18.2 |
| C-USA | Kennesaw State | 1.3 | 5.2 |
| MAC | Western Michigan | 1.6 | 16.0 |
| Mountain West | Boise State | 1.5 | 25.5 |
| Sun Belt | James Madison | 1.7 | 28.9 |
| Total | — | — | 103.8 |
| Record (Win-loss-pass) | Score (points behind) | Matchplay Points (points behind) | ||
| Bob | 163-37-24 | 3656 (–) | 45.0 (–) | |
| Dan | 145-52-27 | 2452 (-1204) | 18.0 (-27) | |
| Jacob | 120-36-68 | 2338 (-1318) | 15.5 (-29.5) | |
| Zach | 139-42-43 | 2481 (-1175) | 19.5 (-25.5) |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | NC State | 42 | 19 | 23 |
| Big 10 | Oregon | 26 | 14 | 12 |
| Big 12 | Texas Tech | 49 | 0 | 49 |
| SEC | Ole Miss | 38 | 19 | 19 |
| P4 Flex 1 | Louisville | 41 | 0 | 41 |
| P4 Flex 2 | Utah | 31 | 21 | 10 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Alabama | 27 | 20 | 7 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 254 | 93 | 161 |
| American Athletic | North Texas | 52 | 25 | 27 |
| Conference USA | Kennesaw State | 48 | 42 | 6 |
| Mid-American | Toledo | 21 | 3 | 18 |
| MWC | Fresno State | 41 | 14 | 27 |
| Sun Belt | Old Dominion | 27 | 10 | 17 |
| G5 Flex 1 | Air Force | 42 | 21 | 21 |
| G5 Flex 2 | East Carolina | 42 | 3 | 39 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 273 | 118 | 155 |
| Wild Card | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | – | 527 | 211 | 316 |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | Miami | 38 | 7 | 31 |
| Big 10 | USC | 29 | 10 | 19 |
| Big 12 | BYU | 41 | 21 | 20 |
| SEC | Texas A&M | 17 | 27 | -10 |
| P4 Flex 1 | Iowa State | 20 | 13 | 7 |
| P4 Flex 2 | Oklahoma | 17 | 13 | 4 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Illinois | 20 | 13 | 7 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Iowa | 40 | 16 | 24 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 222 | 120 | 102 |
| American Athletic | Memphis | 17 | 28 | -11 |
| Conference USA | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mid-American | Ohio | 31 | 26 | 5 |
| MWC | Wyoming | 7 | 27 | -20 |
| Sun Belt | James Madison | 59 | 10 | 49 |
| G5 Flex 1 | Army | 27 | 24 | 3 |
| G5 Flex 2 | Bowling Green | 45 | 14 | 31 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 186 | 129 | 57 |
| Wild Card | Notre Dame | 49 | 20 | 29 |
| Total | – | 457 | 269 | 188 |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | SMU | 35 | 38 | -3 |
| Big 10 | Ohio State | 27 | 9 | 18 |
| Big 12 | Kansas State | 24 | 14 | 10 |
| SEC | Georgia | 16 | 9 | 7 |
| P4 Flex 1 | Virginia | 27 | 7 | 20 |
| P4 Flex 2 | TCU | 45 | 23 | 22 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Arizona | 23 | 7 | 16 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 197 | 107 | 90 |
| American Athletic | South Florida | 52 | 3 | 49 |
| Conference USA | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mid-American | Miami (OH) | 45 | 24 | 21 |
| MWC | UNLV | 42 | 17 | 25 |
| Sun Belt | Louisiana | 30 | 27 | 3 |
| G5 Flex 1 | Northern Illinois | 31 | 35 | -4 |
| G5 Flex 2 | Tulsa | 24 | 31 | -7 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 224 | 137 | 87 |
| Wild Card | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | – | 421 | 244 | 177 |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Big 10 | Indiana | 56 | 3 | 53 |
| Big 12 | Baylor | 24 | 31 | -7 |
| SEC | Tennessee | 24 | 45 | -21 |
| P4 Flex 1 | Missouri | 31 | 17 | 14 |
| P4 Flex 2 | South Carolina | 14 | 28 | -14 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Penn State | 40 | 36 | 4 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 189 | 160 | 29 |
| American Athletic | Tulane | 27 | 0 | 27 |
| Conference USA | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mid-American | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MWC | Hawai’i | 27 | 7 | 20 |
| Sun Belt | Texas State | 49 | 26 | 23 |
| G5 Flex 1 | UTSA | 24 | 27 | -3 |
| G5 Flex 2 | Southern Miss | 18 | 28 | -10 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 145 | 88 | 57 |
| Wild Card | Washington State | 32 | 8 | 24 |
| Total | – | 366 | 256 | 110 |
| Record (Win-loss-pass) | Score (points behind) | Matchplay Points (points behind) | ||
| Bob | 149-37-22 | 3340 (–) | 41.0 (–) | |
| Dan | 133-49-26 | 2264 (-1076) | 16.0 (-25) | |
| Jacob | 110-33-65 | 2161 (-1179) | 14.5 (-26.5) | |
| Zach | 132-37-39 | 2371 (-969) | 19.5 (-21.5) |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | Florida State | 11 | 21 | -10 |
| Big 10 | Michigan | 45 | 20 | 25 |
| Big 12 | Utah | 51 | 47 | 4 |
| SEC | Alabama | 56 | 0 | 56 |
| P4 Flex 1 | Oregon | 42 | 27 | 15 |
| P4 Flex 2 | Washington | 48 | 14 | 34 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Vanderbilt | 45 | 17 | 28 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 298 | 146 | 152 |
| American Athletic | North Texas | 56 | 24 | 32 |
| Conference USA | Middle Tennessee | 31 | 17 | 14 |
| Mid-American | Toledo | 38 | 9 | 29 |
| MWC | Fresno State | 17 | 28 | -11 |
| Sun Belt | Old Dominion | 45 | 10 | 35 |
| G5 Flex 1 | East Carolina | 24 | 58 | -34 |
| G5 Flex 2 | Kennesaw State | 41 | 34 | 7 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 252 | 180 | 72 |
| Wild Card | UConn | 48 | 45 | 3 |
| Total | – | 598 | 371 | 227 |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | Miami | 34 | 17 | 17 |
| Big 10 | Illinois | 10 | 27 | -17 |
| Big 12 | BYU | 26 | 14 | 12 |
| SEC | Texas A&M | 48 | 0 | 48 |
| P4 Flex 1 | Iowa | 20 | 17 | 3 |
| P4 Flex 2 | Iowa State | 38 | 14 | 24 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Oklahoma | 17 | 6 | 11 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Texas | 52 | 37 | 15 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 245 | 132 | 113 |
| American Athletic | Army | 25 | 26 | -1 |
| Conference USA | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mid-American | Ohio | 42 | 14 | 28 |
| MWC | Wyoming | 7 | 13 | -6 |
| Sun Belt | James Madison | 24 | 20 | 4 |
| G5 Flex 1 | Marshall | 24 | 26 | -2 |
| G5 Flex 2 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 122 | 99 | 23 |
| Wild Card | Notre Dame | 70 | 7 | 63 |
| Total | – | 437 | 238 | 199 |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | SMU | 38 | 6 | 32 |
| Big 10 | Ohio State | 42 | 9 | 33 |
| Big 12 | UCF | 17 | 14 | 3 |
| SEC | Georgia | 35 | 3 | 32 |
| P4 Flex 1 | Arizona | 41 | 17 | 24 |
| P4 Flex 2 | Houston | 14 | 17 | -3 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 187 | 66 | 121 |
| American Athletic | South Florida | 48 | 18 | 30 |
| Conference USA | Louisiana Tech | 34 | 28 | 6 |
| Mid-American | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MWC | UNLV | 38 | 10 | 28 |
| Sun Belt | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| G5 Flex 1 | New Mexico | 20 | 3 | 17 |
| G5 Flex 2 | Jacksonville State | 21 | 27 | -6 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 161 | 86 | 75 |
| Wild Card | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | – | 348 | 152 | 196 |
| Team | Score | Opponent Score | Net Score | |
| ACC | Clemson | 45 | 10 | 35 |
| Big 10 | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Big 12 | Arizona State | 42 | 17 | 25 |
| SEC | Auburn | 62 | 17 | 45 |
| P4 Flex 1 | South Carolina | 51 | 7 | 44 |
| P4 Flex 2 | LSU | 13 | 10 | 3 |
| P4 Flex 3 | Duke | 32 | 25 | 7 |
| P4 Flex 4 | Tennessee | 31 | 11 | 20 |
| PAC12 Memorial P4 Subtotal | – | 276 | 97 | 179 |
| American Athletic | Tulane | 37 | 13 | 24 |
| Conference USA | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mid-American | Pass | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MWC | Boise State | 49 | 21 | 28 |
| Sun Belt | Texas State | 31 | 14 | 17 |
| G5 Flex 1 | San Diego State | 25 | 3 | 22 |
| G5 Flex 2 | Troy | 31 | 19 | 12 |
| G5 Subtotal | – | 173 | 70 | 103 |
| Wild Card | Georgia Tech | 28 | 42 | -14 |
| Total | – | 477 | 209 | 268 |